On 21/06/2011 ClimbingNT wrote:>I think its crazy that they can have a carbon tax, and then the money collected>used for things like welfare.>>Shouldnt carbon tax money be put towards a more eco-friendly industry,>or renewable energy, more solar in Central Australia, etc?
It's not intended to be welfare as such, but compensation for the poor who will be disproportionately targeted becaue energy costs are a higher percentage of their income.

The tax gathers money from the generators at the wholesale level to change the bidding order into the NEM. This money is then redistributed to the people who have higher electricity bills. There is likely to be mone left over because I don't think they'll compensate businesses.

>Maybe not all of it, but some of it.

The 'other stuff' you decribe is often called Complementary Measures. Most people argue that there need to be some in conjunction with a tax.>>I am sure the next tax will be on other items that people need....like>a water tax - oh wait a minute...

On 21/06/2011 hangdog wrote:>On 21/06/2011 satan wrote:>>It's funny. I thought I already voted twice on this topic. >>When did we even vote once on this??

In 2007 when both leaders took a carbon trading scheme to the election and 85% of people voted for it. Then the Liberal opposition ignored the 'mandate' (not that I believe in mandates, governments should govern between elections) and killed the policy and their leader.

On 21/06/2011 evanbb wrote:>On 21/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:>>>At this stage if nuclear is off the table there is not a clear cost-effective>>alternative to coal fired electricity. When that alternative presents>>itself is the time to consider making the switch.>>Many, many people would dispute that nuclear is in any way cost effective.>It's really, really expensive.

That could certainly be the case but at the very least it should be a reference point to guide the debate. At the moment the pro-tax side seems to think if you pull a lever a wind turbine will spring up and solve our energy problems.

>>In 2007 when both leaders took a carbon trading scheme to the election>>and 85% of people voted for it.> How did you arrive at a figure of 85%??

Well, it's actually probably higher than that.

Labor took the CPRS model to the election; Howard and the Coalition had a 5% unilateral target and a trading scheme; the Greens supported a 25% target and a price on carbon. The common ground was definitely at least 5% and a price on carbon.

I can't remember the numbers, but 40% of people voted Labor, 45% voted Coalition and 12% voted Green. That's more like 97% of the population voted for a party with essentially a carbon tax as their policy.

So, if you're going to shout mandate (which I don't believe in anyway) you've got to remember it works both ways.

On 21/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:>At the moment the pro-tax side seems>to think if you pull a lever a wind turbine will spring up and solve our>energy problems.

And I actually don't think that's too far wrong. Energy generating companies know which projects will be viable for a given price on carbon/price of electricity. Raise that price and the projects literally will spring up. Not wind turbines necessarily though.

>>That could certainly be the case but at the very least it should be a>reference point to guide the debate. At the moment the pro-tax side seems>to think if you pull a lever a wind turbine will spring up and solve our>energy problems.

Read the ZeroCarbonEmissions 2020 report and then say there are no alternatives to coal. All the players in the electricity generation are protecting their patch and as thereally big players are into coal that is hard to ramp up and down with demand do not want to see large scale solar which would cut out the lucrative daytime elctricity prices . eg in Vic now power is $35 Mwh after peaking today at $55 but is expected to be $10 between 4 and 6 am . Demand ranged from 7800 to 4800 Mwh of which the aluminium industry is taking a continual 1500 to 1800 Mwh.
I think the head of Rio was quoted as saying a carbon price of $150 would make nuclear viable (he sell uranium) . equals $195 Mwh tax on brown coal , $150 on black coal and $45 on gas fired . Currently wind is supposedly $70 all up but unfortunately unless on a vast scale and diverse locations to variable to reliable but certainly could replace a large portion of the coal power.

On 22/06/2011 Duncan wrote:>On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:>>All you're saying is let's pay more for our energy....I for one disagree>>with that proposition.>>How many times a day do you get told you're a moron? 20? 30?

Is that all you've got? Do you actually have anything of substance (ie not personal insults) to contribute?

For the record Im actually for a tax on carbon eventually but I just think the current Govt dosn't have the right to bring it in. Gillard definately said there would be no carbon tax under this current govt, not maybe, not we will think about it....but a definate no. If she is so keen for the carbon tax wait a few years and bring it to the vote next election, with a sound policy fully thought out without special interests groups pulling strings in the background.

Mind you I dont trust this labor govt to get it right anyway....they have a record for fuking everything up...are very light on actual details of such a major reform at tme when they are bringing it in supposedly next year???...dosn't anybody else think they really dont know what they are doing.

Because they dont have a mandate/majority, they are doing a hell of alot of backroom deals which generally means big corps, special interest groups and govts will be the winner...and the rest of us get screwed.

On 22/06/2011 rodw wrote:>Mind you I dont trust this labor govt to get it right anyway....they have>a record for fuking everything up...are very light on actual details of>such a major reform at tme when they are bringing it in supposedly next>year???...dosn't anybody else think they really dont know what they are>doing.

This is an important point. I would be far more interested in the idea of a carbon tax (or any policy for that matter) with a government that knows how to get things right. I cannot for one minute entertain the idea that this government will be able to effectively execute this policy given their appalling track record.

>Scary thing Abbot is a bigger twat...so not much choice TBH.
This is so frustrating too. A decent opposition leader would be able to tear them a new arsehole and easily win over the public instead of fumbling about...

On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:>All you're saying is let's pay more for our energy....I for one disagree>with that proposition.

i think the proposition generally is more, lets pay the true value of energy, including the costs of second/third/fourth etc order impacts which are sometimes hard to undertand becasue they are not easily boiled down to $$ assessments.

Complex problems are difficult for the entire public to grasp, which is why governments are there to consider and make decisions on our behalf, and why the plebicites for this kind of thing are complete rubbish. Democracy is intended to be the right to have your voice heard and fairly considered, not the the right to have everything you want delivered in the manner that you want it done, which is a good thing given that the majority often lack access to the info nessesary to make informed decisions.

seems to me that the biggest failing with carbon pricing has not been the decision making as much as the commuication of the rationale, which has allowed abbott/jones et al to gain allies using the most basic of one liners rather than real arguments. 2gb has even fessed up to the fact that they used fake figures when discussing the impact of carbon (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230989.htm)